We must not overlook that the war of principles, even if some are not yet clearly "identified".
For many of these principles reflect the idea that war, initially a military activity, is to fuelled by the fight and nothing else, and that his victory is possible by appliquation of a serie of rules to follow. Their implementation must (normally) produce a positive result. In this case the echec is then due to failure of one of these "rules" and not the opponent.
I will be more partisant a second approach where the war would be such a "dialectic" between two opponents whose nature is not unitary. In this case the principles of war are at best a "set of conditions leading to the success in combat," but where there is no "keys" or formulas, and therefore no list of principles to follow. Based on the antagonistic dimension of the war, and not taking it as a simple military confrontation, while recognizing that the war is a social phenomenon and a part of global policy. The conduct of war is therefore expected to rely on the intelligence situation. May like the Observe-Orient-Decide-Act formula said it.
And, after all, some of the greatest social and technological advances, don't they were completed during times of war ?